Heard learned counsel Sri.Bharath Kumar V for

petitioner through video conference, learned counsel

Sri.Gouthamdev C.Ullal for respondent No.1 and learned

counsel Sri.M.S.Devaraj for respondent Nos.2 to 4, and

- 3 -

Sri.K.R.Nityananda,

learned

Additional

Government

Advocate for respondent No.5. Perused the writ petition

papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

in pursuance of the decree in O.S.No.487/2013, the

petitioner got rectified the boundary in the katha in

respect of the property bearing No.5/6, situated at

Gangavara Chowdappanahalli village, Devanahalli taluk,

Bangalore Rural District. The katha shows Appajappa’s

property to the East in the changed katha. Aggrieved by

the said changed katha, respondent No.1 approached the

second respondent in Appeal No.12/2018-19. The appeal

filed by respondent No.1 was allowed by order dated

08.01.2020 (Annexure-K) on the ground that the sale

deed under which, the petitioner had purchased the

property showed road on the eastern side. Aggrieved by

the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 5^th

respondent.

The

5^th

respondent

by

order

dated

01.02.2021 dismissed the appeal confirming the order

- 4 -

passed by the second respondent. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would contend that, change of boundary in the

katha was in pursuance of the judgment and decree in

O.S.No.487/2013 and as such, the second respondent

could not have allowed the appeal filed by respondent

No.1 herein.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

would submit that original sale deed of the petitioner in

respect of the property in question showed the road on the

eastern side as could be evidenced from Annexure-R2 to

the statement of objections and submits that the

judgment passed in O.S.No.487/201 cannot be a basis to

change the boundary to the property. Since the suit is

between the petitioner and brother of the first respondent,

the first respondent who is not a party, judgment would

not bind. Moreover he submits that the second

respondent restored the boundary shown in the original

sale deed of the petitioner’s property and restored the

- 5 -

original boundary as indicated in the earlier katha. Thus,

he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

This Court, by order dated 18.11.2022 directed the

petitioner to place on record the sale deed dated

25.01.1939 under which, the petitioner is claiming his title

over the subject property. The petitioner has failed to

place on record the said sale deed.

The katha in respect of the property at Annexure-

R1 would indicate road on the eastern side of the

property in question. The judgment on which the

petitioner places reliance to get the boundary changed

on eastern side, Appajappa’s property is between the

petitioner and first respondent’s brother and since

respondent No.1 is not party to the said suit, the

judgment in O.S.No.487/2013 would not bind respondent

No.1. Moreover, under Annexure-K/order, the second

respondent has restored the boundary i.e., Government

Road to the eastern side of the property as indicated in

the original sale deed, under which, the petitioner claims

- 6 -

title over the property. I do not find any error in the

orders impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition stands

rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MPK

CT:bms

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53